Geoff Shackelford's "Part of the Solution" article

« **Reply #75 on:** January 18, 2009, 01:20:26 PM »

Quote from: Jim_Kennedy on January 18, 2009, 12:20:44 PM

And if Rezko overpaid for the lot, how did he sell it for 575k a year later (this is one year after Obama paid 104k for the strip he bought) ?

He sold it to his attorney.

« **Reply #76 on:** January 18, 2009, 01:37:53 PM »

Krugman on what Obama should do...this is pretty cut and dry and understandable..

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/25456948/what_obama_must_do/print

« **Reply #77 on:** January 18, 2009, 02:06:03 PM »

Jim,
.....and that proves what?, that Rezko might have been trying to curry favor? No Quid Pro Quo has ever been found, and it isn't because no one has been looking. Rezko tried to curry favor with legions of pols, he even raised 3.5 million for Bush. Anyone ever looked for the Quid Pro Quo from that transaction?

Conservatives like Tom Bevan of RealClearPolitics and Conor Clarke, writing for The New Republic at the time, have said the 'evidence' was "pretty darn weak"(Bevan), and that this is a "nonscandal" in which "journalists have followed the smoke and haven’t found the fire. At that point, accusing someone of something that looks wrong stops making sense" (Clarke)

Imagine that.

« **Reply #78 on:** January 18, 2009, 02:30:23 PM »

Quote from: Jim_Kennedy on January 18, 2009, 02:06:03 PM

Jim,
.....and that proves what?, that Rezko might have been trying to curry favor? No Quid Pro Quo has ever been found, and it isn't because no one has been looking. Rezko tried to curry favor with legions of pols, he even raised 3.5 million for Bush. Anyone ever looked for the Quid Pro Quo from that transaction?

Conservatives like Tom Bevan of RealClearPolitics and Conor Clarke, writing for The New Republic at the time, have said the 'evidence' was "pretty darn weak"(Bevan), and that this is a "nonscandal" in which "journalists have followed the smoke and haven’t found the fire. At that point, accusing someone of something that looks wrong stops making sense" (Clarke)

Imagine that.

Couldn't agree more. The reality is that Obama got too close to a guy who wound up looking pretty scummy. That's hardly an indictment of Obama's character, although it might show that his judgment was suspect in this particular transaction.

It's pretty easy now, with the retrospectoscope, to say that Rezko is/was a bad guy, but you have to remember that he was indicted and convicted here in the Northern District of Illinois, where political "figures", meaning anybody in any way associated with politics, are indicted and convicted of things that don't really look or sound like crimes. There is a lot of borderline prosecutions here in Chicago. As for Rezko, it sure looks like he was trying to loot the state coffers and he's paying the price. But it is manifestly unfair to tag Obama with all of Rezko's misdeeds.

Finally, if you want to tie Obama to Rezko, you come up with the grand total of one scumbag that he's stuck with. That's a pretty good number when you consider Obama got elected president. Bush and Clinton were fairly surrounded by scumbags when they were first elected.

« **Reply #79 on:** January 18, 2009, 04:47:43 PM »

Dave you talk big...but when all is said and done, you are a small person...

« **Reply #80 on:** January 18, 2009, 04:55:19 PM »

You can not serve the public without "breaching the public trust"...it's all a question of perspective...

Bush tortured people, and for some that was the right thing to do...

Lawyers breach that trust everyday...some more than others.

« **Reply #81 on:** January 18, 2009, 05:02:23 PM »

"Now the trumpet summons us again...."

Dave,

Not giving beans about state politices, I am completely ignorant of all this stuff. What did Obama due for Rezko that was the breach of public trust?

Jeff

« **Reply #82 on:** January 18, 2009, 05:05:45 PM »

Dave,
What you say you know ain't worth Jack. You haven't provided any proof of wrong doing on Obama's part, all you've done is regurgitate and spew what's already been discounted by sane people, even sane people from the conservative side of politics.

When I see the article on the front page of the newspaper in which you expose the next president of the US for his bribe taking, then I might believe there was some substance behind your vivid imagination.

Until then, good luck, and keep in mind that the chorus of like minded voices you hear are mostly in your own head.

« **Reply #83 on:** January 18, 2009, 05:08:35 PM »

You assume that there is a collective "public trust"...there isn't much of one anymore...one mans breach is another mans statement of principle. And there are supporters of both out there...

« **Reply #84 on:** January 18, 2009, 05:13:01 PM »

"He took his money and the reasonable conclusion, given that at the time he was a public servant, is that he promised a future favor."

Huh? Lets see...a city council member receives donations from individuals, and the reasonable conclusion is there will be a future favor?

« **Reply #85 on:** January 18, 2009, 05:16:26 PM »

Wait, so he didn't do anything? What's the crime? It ain't conspiracy, which requires an agreement to do something and an act in furtherance. While I suppose the purchase could be the act, if there's no specific something, there's no crime (simply agreeing to perform some, unknown, future something doesn't cut it). Does someone be guilty of accepting a bribe without actually doing anything?

Enzo was the guy who's father-in-law got the Godfather to fix his immigration status. If he gave someone money for it, you got an act AND a somthing.

The other one is Bonasera. Again, you got a something and an act (having the godfather's guys beat the crap out of the guys who screwed his daughter). In that case, it was the PAYMENT that came later, not the act or the something. And both of these are conspiracies too.

« **Reply #86 on:** January 18, 2009, 05:19:50 PM »

Dave, are you posting or publishing your political insight anywhere else on the Internet or some other media? Honestly, your approach does serve a purpose of keeping the 'old' debate going for many of us similarly bored and housebound, particularly on a slow persistently snowy Sunday afternoon. But, a fine writer and schooled attorney like yourself ought to share your ideas and insights with a wider audience than us 1500 GCA.com'ers (or commoners)

BTW, your gesture to pay my next year green fees if you had ever been in the defense of Bush's transactions is a safe play on two counts by me. I won't be playing any golf next year, and I am way to freakin lazy to commence the engagement of this feeble search engine we have here. But, if you are clean on that, how did all these folks get the idea that you'd be a Bush admin apologist until the last dog barks? How could you be so misunderstood?

Unless like I believe, Bush Policy = Bush shady transactions and cronyism, and you don't get one without the other. $:-\$

« **Reply #87 on:** January 18, 2009, 05:20:08 PM »

Dave...many of the very same people that felt Clinton "breached the public trust" when he lied about an affair with an intern, applauded Bush and his lies that led to this useless war...and they do not see that as a breach of the public trust...

It is very difficult for democracy to work when we have such a scued (?) sense of what is right and what is wrong...I blame it on a political belief that states first and fore most "you are either with us or against us", and then governs from there...

« **Reply #88 on:** January 18, 2009, 05:25:41 PM »

"Craig, the difference is that political contributions, by law, cannot be used for personal expenses. "

Nice juke Dave...who cares where the money comes from and how its spent....it is the FAVOR that matters...and when there is no favor in return, there is no crime...

« **Reply #89 on:** January 18, 2009, 05:30:42 PM »

Quote from: Jeff Goldman on January 18, 2009, 05:16:26 PM

It ain't conspiracy, which requires an agreement to do something and an act in furtherance.

I thought the feds did away with the overt act requirement

« **Reply #90 on:** January 18, 2009, 05:32:18 PM »

"They trusted him to not lie. He did. He did it so blatantly and obviously that it's now a national punchline. He made a mockery of the dignity of public service. "

You're talking about Bush here, right?

« **Reply #91 on:** January 18, 2009, 05:33:28 PM »

Quote from: Craig Sweet on January 18, 2009, 04:47:43 PM

Dave you talk big...but when all is said and done, you are a small person...

Shivas may on occasion talk big. But he is no small person by any measure.

« **Reply #92 on:** January 18, 2009, 05:34:45 PM »

"just the same way I'm sickened by Obama's vague nonsense that he's spewed to his base that he had no intention of fulfilling."

Had? past tense? Hmm...at least we know now, in hindsight, that Bush was full of poop...

You have convicted Obama before he has been sworn in...you must have aspirations to be a judge.

« **Reply #93 on:** January 18, 2009, 05:35:25 PM »

No crime. If you and I agree to some sort of payoff in the future, and you pay me for it, but we don't agree on what it is (it's a "favor to be named later"), nope. Otherwise, virtually every large contributor, lobbyist, etc. belongs in the can, especially the guy who raises $1,000,000 for a candidate and ends up Ambassador to Luxembourg. Again, Bonasera asked the Godfather to commit the crime, and the Godfather simply financed the payment until Sonny got killed, something someone in your field should recognize (though it would be tough to securitize the right to a really good embalming).

(edited) John, you're right, the Supremes did it in 1994 for some crimes. Wow, been a while since I been in law school. Doesn't change it though. Also shows how rotten federal criminal law is. One of two Scalia decisions I can recall agreeing with is when he said that the RICO statute was unconstitutional (flag burning was the other one).

« **Reply #94 on:** January 18, 2009, 05:43:31 PM »

"But Rezko basically put $300K in Obama's personal pocket"

Dave did he put the money in Obama's pocket or did he not? Because, basically, without something more than that, you have only an opinion of Obama's character.

« **Reply #95 on:** January 18, 2009, 05:47:05 PM »

Does "basically" work in the court room?

« **Reply #96 on:** January 18, 2009, 05:50:30 PM »

Let me see if I understand this...first of all you paint a picture of Chicago politics that is not very flattering....then you drop Obama into this cesspool...and "basically" and "indirectly" accuse him of being corrupt?

And what in hell does "frangibility of money" mean?

« **Reply #97 on:** January 18, 2009, 05:56:11 PM »

No, you typed fungi....it was me that had happy fingers...and I do know what it means...just pointing out the difficulty in trying to explain to a jury, for example...how someone "basically" and indirectly" put money into someone's pocket...when there is nothing there...

« **Reply #98 on:** January 18, 2009, 05:58:02 PM »

Seeting?

« **Reply #99 on:** January 18, 2009, 06:01:46 PM »

No Dave...but it would appear that despite the best efforts of the Obama haters to pin something illegal and tainted on Obama, that this Rezko thing ain't working...too much "basically" and "indirectly"...and fungibility...and not enough "here's the money, here's the payback, there's the crime...

News:

Jim Nugent

Craig Sweet

Jim_Kennedy

tlavin

Craig Sweet

Craig Sweet

Jeff Goldman

Jim_Kennedy

Craig Sweet

Craig Sweet

Jeff Goldman

RJ_Daley

Craig Sweet

Craig Sweet

John_Cullum

Craig Sweet

John_Cullum

Craig Sweet

Jeff Goldman

Craig Sweet

Craig Sweet

Craig Sweet

Craig Sweet

Craig Sweet

Craig Sweet

An Error Has Occurred!